Andrew Little had a major cock up saying that Maori should be able to write their own laws, something which it appears the Greens agreed to because they reckon his first major cock up is something different ¬†and something that no one cares about.

Norman said it was a “bad call” and is upset he¬†learned¬†of the decision through the media.

Now the Greens say Little has broken the law as well as convention.

The Intelligence and Security Committee Act 1996 states that the leader of the opposition must nominate representatives “following consultation with the leader of each party that is not in Government or in coalition with a Government party”.

A Green Party spokesman said this was Little’s first “big stuff up” and are calling on him to back down. ¬†¬† Read more »

Labour has confirmed it will support new foreign fighter laws after changes including a softening of a planned 48-hour warrant-free period for spies.

However the Greens have said they won’t support the legislation.

“We accept there is an increased threat level and new measures are needed to ensure our security agencies can rapidly respond to terrorist threats,”¬†Labour Leader Andrew Little said after a caucus meeting discussed changes hammered out at a select committee.

“Labour has ensured that all searches on potential terrorist activity will require a warrant except in cases of urgent and extreme risk. ¬†¬† Read more »

Rodney Hide has done what no journalist has managed to do, written a summary of the failings of Phil Goff and the SIS briefing her got but said he never did.

And he only needed 450 words to do it.

Security Intelligence Service (SIS) boss Rebecca Kitteridge should have told Phil Goff to get stuffed. Instead she apologised. I wouldn’t have.

In election year 2011 – several Labour leaders ago – Goff was floundering about trying to get a hit on Prime Minister John Key. His attacks invariably backfired.

There was a kerfuffle about supposed suspicious activity by Israeli nationals. Key initially declined to comment, citing national security concerns. He subsequently explained that a security intelligence investigation uncovered nothing untoward.

Goff characteristically attacked, saying Key had made a hash of explaining the hitherto unknown concern and that people were asking: “Are we even now being told the truth?” This was a roundabout way of accusing Key of lying.

Further, Goff asserted he should have been briefed. “It’s not been part of any briefing to me.” Key said that wasn’t true. Oops.

Previous SIS boss Warren Tucker met Goff to refresh his memory. The result was Goff flailing about. “There was no briefing per se … I don’t recall at all seeing the document.”

Subsequently, Tucker provided a heavily redacted agenda note under the Official Information Act on his briefing of Goff and the relevant Security Intelligence report, called Investigation into Israeli Nationals in Christchurch, with Tucker’s handwritten note: “Read by/discussed with Mr Goff 14 March 11.”

Goff then attacked Tucker. “I was not shown the document … Warren Tucker is wrong … I was never ‘briefed’ by the SIS.”

It was election year. Goff was losing. He was lashing out. And he couldn’t say he had forgotten or hadn’t paid attention because that was one of his attack lines on Key.

The media and opposition appear to have fallen for the standard civil liberties play.

Here is how it goes.

Any reduction of civil liberties will be met by strong opposition. ¬†That’s a given. ¬† So, if you want to achieve something, make sure you actually make it sound worse.

After some time, “you’ve listened to the people of New Zealand”, and you withdraw the most contentious issue.

The civil liberty campaigners will see it as a victory, and… voila! ¬†What you really wanted through … is through.

A classic master class in this was the introduction of “ID card”¬†driving licenses. ¬† At the time, they pushed the idea it would become a “national identity card”, and “mandatory photo ID”.

Cue¬†the civil liberty campaigners… ¬† after “listening”, the government stepped away from pushing it as far as they originally proposed, and… voila! ¬† They achieved a photo-id database that was unprecedented at the time. ¬†Not even passports were that “digitised” at the time.

Incidentally, all these civil liberties people were Missing In Action when all my private data was being intercepted and passed around without a search warrant – but I digress…

With that strategy of deliberately overexciting the numpties with a fake bit of policy in mind, I’ve been observing the current outcry about the “Terror” Bill. ¬† The most contentious of it appears to be the 48 hours of surveillance without a search warrant. Read more »

Well, the report has been released, and it was leaked to media the day before.

So who did it and have they broken the law.

The question of breaking the law is an easy one…yes, whoever leaked the report broke the law. I know this because the day before the report was released I received a letter from the Inspector-general outlining the embargo and law that pertained to it and told me in no uncertain terms what would happen should I leak details of the report.

So that makes the law very clear.

Now we come to who could have¬†leaked the information that the media ran with the day before the report was released.

This is where I think the leaker made a strategic and tactical error.

The number of people privy tot he report details was incredibly small. Worse than that the numbers of copies that were in existence was even smaller.

When I was offered a chance to review the draft report I was only able to read it in a secure location, and under supervision from an authorised person. Once I had read the report then all copies and all pieces of paper were removed from my possession.

I can’t imagine it would have been any different for almost everyone else in the¬†inquiry, except the politicians who seem to have rules for themselves that places them above everyone else. ¬† Read more »

“The Key administration has plumbed new depths of arrogance and contempt for the notion of politicians being accountable for their actions in its response to today’s hugely embarrassing report by the independent watchdog who maintains oversight over the Security Intelligence Service.

Rather than take the findings of the report by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Cheryl Gwyn on the chin, National sought to bury the report.”

Regular readers will know that I’m not one for the current epidemic of drop kicks on twitter being outraged and demanding apologies.

It seems John Key is like me in that respect and has basically said Phil Goff isn’t going to get one from him.

Prime Minister John Key says he will not offer an apology to Labour’s Phil Goff and is defending his office against any claims of wrongdoing over the involvement in the OIA request by Whaleoil blogger Cam Slater to SIS head Warren Tucker.

A report on Dirty Politics allegations released this morning found former SIS director Warren Tucker failed to take adequate steps to maintain the spy agency’s political neutrality.

Speaking soon after the report’s release this morning, Mr Key said the Inspector General’s report had cleared his office of any wrongdoing and no apology was necessary.

“The report makes it absolutely crystal clear that my office did nothing that was either unprofessional or breached any of the requirements on them.”

He also countered Labour’s accusations he was using SIS information for political purposes, accusing Labour of leaking selected parts of the Inspector General’s report to the media yesterday in advance of its release. ¬†¬† Read more »